SOUTH LAN - 0
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A MODEL 0] INTERWORKINC
Long'-standing Cooperation Between Company and Mimicipal Operators Makes South Lancashire a Pattern for Other Areas in Britain
By C. S. DU NBAR,M.Inst.T.
IT .is doubtful whether, in any part of the country. so many operators are linked together by throughrunning agreements as in South Lancashire. This co-operation is of long standing, and to appreciate the present position it is necessary to go back to the early days of tramway operation
Forty years ago, in South Lancashire and North-east Cheshire, there were in the area south of a line from Great Crosby to Bacup, four companies and 13 municipalities operating tramways, with, in addition, 13 municipalities and one company owning tracks, but leasing, them to the actual operators. A pioneer experiment was the coming together of the councils of Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield to form a joint tramway's and electricity board, which built up a network of services in North-east Cheshire.
Through-running began with Bolton cars entering Farnworth on April 13, 1900, and Salford, from the first. rented Manchester tracks in the Deansgate area SO as to bring passengers across the Irwell. Manchester's first through-running arrangement was with Oldham, a service between Waterhead and Piccadilly being started on January 22, 1907. Except for the Manchester terminus being moved to Stevenson Square, this service has operated ever since, buses being substituted for trains on August 5, 1946.
Agreements followed with the S.H.M.D. Board, Ashton, Stockport and Rochdale, but it was not until 1926 that any attemnt was made to give cross-town services from west to •east. in that year Manchester and Salford began jointly to work through-tram services between Kasai and Levenshulme; Prestwick and
n,
Levenshuline; Swinton and Reddish (via Pendlebury); and Weaste and Bellevue. The Swinton-Reddish service was 'withdrawn in December, 1930, but the others continued until the change-over of the Salford trams-to buses in 1937.
It might have been expected that these services would have been replaced by through-bus services, but this was not done, so that to-day there is a definite gap in the facilities_which arc provided. In fact, Deansgate (which runs roughly north and south) acts as a boundary between the places east and west of it. The joint Manchester-Salford service from Worsley to Piccadilly, via Eccles and Weaste, is the only one which crosses it.
A large-scale attempt to provide for the cross-town traveller was made in 1927, when express services with a minimum fare of 2d. (later raised to 3d.) were started between Cheadle and Heywood (later Gatley and Norden); Gatley and Shaw; Gatley and Scouthead; Stockport and Bury; Stockport and Hollinwood; Hyde and Bolton; Audenshaw and Worsley; Stalybridge and Chorhon; Flixton and Bacup; and Knott Mill and Rochdale. The longest of these was Flixton-Bacup (261 miles). Headvvays varied from 15 to 60 minutes. All services interconnected in the centre of Manchester.
This development undoubtedly filled a need. Previously, buses had been employed in the area only as feeders to the trams, and to have travelled by tram 'from, say. Bolton to Hyde, would have involved four changes. whilst even to go by train necessitated two
walks and a tram journey in Manchester. The police, however, were hostile to the experiment, as, they alleged, traffic congestion in the -centre of Manchester was increased..
When the Traffic Commissioners were established they took. the view that there was no point in giving connecting facilities between areas which had no mutual interests, and, consequently, they would grant; licences for the routes only on condition thaf they were" broken in the .ceruie The effect on the Bolton-Hydeservice already referred to was that the portion between Greengate, Salford and Parker Street, Manchester, was cut out. Other routes were similarly mutilated, and some were withdrawn altogether.
From 1930,. tramway abandonment in the Manchester area proceeded fairly rapidly and generally the oppor tunity was taken to improve through-running facilities.
The Salford-Manchester cross services were an exception. Tramway abandonment meant, in most cases, that the operating authorities, paid the cost of road reinstatement where they had leased other authorities' tracks, and were then free of liability. In one instance, where Manchester changed from trams to trolleybuses, the city had, for a few years, to assist a small urban council to make good the loss of rateable value, but the only non-operating authority formerly owning tram tracks in the area which to-day obtains any financial benefit from the buses passing through its territory is the borough of Heywood.
Three Corporations Co-operate Hcywood leased its tracks to Bury and Rochdale. On the removal of the trams, Heywood was able to secure the agreement of the other two corporations to a participating arrangement. On the through route between Rochdale and Bury, 2.16 miles is in Rochdale, 3.47 mites in Heywood and 1.39 miles in Bury. The through 8d. fare is, therefore, divided in the proportions of 2id. to Rochdale, 4d. to Heywood and lid. to Bury—other fares pro rata. Before Bury and Rochdale pay over Heywood's portion, they deduct their running expenses in respect of the mileage in Heywood.
For a term of years Manchester paid the Trafford Park Estates Co an annual rental for the tracks in the Park, the payment being shared with Stretford Corporation, as were also the profits and losses on these rotr,-This arrangement has now lapsed. Salford shares in the Park service, but the gross receipts on its buses in the Park are handed over to Manchester, which pays Salford's operating costs.
Receipts and Mileage
The general principle aimed at for through-running agreements in the district is that each operator takes the receipts and operates the mileage in his area. This is done by one of four methods:—
(1) Ticket basis.—The receipts are apportioned on the basis of th.actual tickets sold in each area and the receipts collected on behalf of another operator are paid over.
(2) Percentage basis.--7A periodic cheek is taken to ascertain the traffic arising in each area, and the total receipts of the route or group of routes are then pooled and divided on a percentage arrangement.
(3) Route-mileage basis.—Thc total receipts are divided between the operators, according to the length of the route in each area (as, for instance, the Heywood agreement quoted above).
(4) Actual mileage basis.—The actual miles operated • in each area are ascertained and the total revenue apportioned on that basis.
As far as possible, mileage run is balanced between the operators concerned, any necessary adjustment being made usually by a periodic reallocation of vehicles. Any excess at the end of a financial year is dealt with by a carry-forward or, sometimes, by a cash payment. In the case of ba.ses 1, 2 and 4, any mileage run by operator A in the territory of operator B is the latter's liability, but in the case of the third method the total miles are pooled and apportioned according to route length.
Method 1 usually implies rebooking at the boundary and, in the interests of passengers and staff, efforts are being made to end this practice, so that method 2 is coming into more general use. The third system is, of
course, the simplest, but it is open to criticism. If traffic be much denser on one part of a route than on the rest, the operator in whose area the heavy traffic arises may easily, under this method, fail to-earn as much as he would if the service were entirely confined within his boundaries.
Bolton is a good example of the use of varying methods. In 1927 the corporation took over the working of the South Lancashire train route from Moses Gate to Walkden. For many years previously, Bolton had shared the operation of the main route to Farnworth, of which the Walkden line was an offshoot. It was agreed that Bolton should operate as many miles in the tramway company's area on the Walkden and Farnworth routes as the company operated in Bolton territory on the through route from Leigh to Bolton. When, in 1933, the Leigh route was converted to trolleybus working, the same arrangement was continued.
In 1944, Bolton abandoned tram operation to Farnworth and Walkden and introduced motorbuses. An adjustment was then necessary, as Bolton supplies fuel to the L.U.T. trolleybuses operating in its area from Leigh. It has, therefore, been agreed that the L.0 T. should run eight miles in the corporation area for each seven miles that the corporation runs in the company's area.
An interesting point in connection with this arrange ment is that Lanes United Transport Co. operates the corporation "shorts" between Bolton centre and Hutton Lane with four troHeybuses, which, although painted in company livery, are, in fact, the property of the corporation. The company maintains them and debits the cost to the corporation, which takes all the receipts. The operation of these four vehicles is, therefore, outside the pool. So, too, are the peak-hour extras run by the corporation between the centre and Rumworth Station. These extras are worked by motorbuses.
On the Farnworth and Walken routes, the Bolton receipts are obtained by multiplying the total miles operated between Bolton and Moses Gate by the receipts per mile for the whole route. Other Bolton arrangements are as follows:
as the result of past analyses. "Shorts" entirely in either operator's territory are not included. Workmen's tickets are issued separately in each area and each operator is credited with the sales in his own area.
A combination of ticket methods is to be found in the Rochdale area. On the Rochdale, Oldham and Ashton joint service each authority's tickets are issued in its own area and special overprinted tickets are used for cross-boundary bookings. Each authority is credited with the receipts in its own area.
routes covered by through-running agreement at peak of tramway .operation (about 1927): Contiguous routes not part of through services are not shown.
An interesting arrangement is in force in respect of the two routes from Bury to Rawtenstall (one via Ramsbottom and one via Walmersley). Four operators are concerned—Bury, Rawtenstall, Ramsbottom and Ribble. All receipts and all mileage are pooled. A figure of receipts per mile is then calculated and each operator is credited at the rate per mile multiplied by the miles he has run on the services.
A second pool calculated in the same way covers the short services run jointly by Ribble, Ramsbottom and Bury, in which Rawtenstall does not participate. The Ribble service from Bury to Darwen is outside the pooling arrangement. This also applies to certain L.U.T. cross-boundary services in other parts of south-east Lancashire, such as Wigan-Bolton, via Four Lane Ends, these being old-established services which were started before the widespread introduction of inter-urban motorbus routes.
Apart from the long-distance pools between Lancashire and Yorkshire, with which I am not concerned in this survey, the route with the greatest number of participants is the so-called Liverpool-Manchester service, which actually terminates in Greengate, Salford. The participants are Ribble, St. Helens, Leigh, L.U.T. and Salford, and the receipts are divided on a route-mileage basis, the percentages being roughly 21, 9, 7, 51 and 12 respectively. .
Protection for Liverpool it seems curious at first glance that Ribble, which has no recognized territory along this route, should be a participant, whereas Liverpool Corporation is not. Generally speaking, however, Liverpool takes no part in any through-running or inter-working arrangement, and services entering the city from outside are not competitive with the corporation services, because of restrictions on stopping and the application of protective fares. Ribble comes into the picture because of its interest years ago in services between Wigan and St. Helens, via Billinge.
This developed into a Wigan-Liverpool service, with L.U.T. and St. Helens also participating, so that at the present time six buses are employed, one being supplied by Wigan, two by St. Helens, one by L.U.T. and two by Ribble. In addition, Ribble, by agreement, works any necessary extras between St. Helens and Liverpool. The company is, therefore, regarded as an operator interested in the other joint route into Liverpool via St. Helens; i.e., that from Salford. Widnes and Warrington were late in interesting themselves in inter-working and Widnes has actually only one joint route—that to St. Helens, in which St. Helens Corporation participates. Warrington years ago was content to accept lid. per passenger from the companies entering the town, but since 1938 agreements have been made with L.U.T., Messrs. Naylor's Motor Services, North-Western Road Car Co., Ltd., St. Helens Corporation and and Crosville Motor Services, Ltd., and with Wigan for .a works service.
There are two unusual arrangements amongst these. In order to work off accumulated mileage on the Warrington to Stretton and Thelwall routes, the NorthWestern has stationed vehicles in the Warrington garage and the corporation services and fuels them and banks the takings.
This scheme was devised because of the distance the routes are from any North-Western garage. The service to Appleton Thorn is worked one week by Warrington in the morning and by Naylor in the afternoon, and the following week the arrangement is reversed. Each party keeps its own receipts and there is no balancing of mileage or receipts.
Most of what has been said relates to places north and west of Manchester, but it should also be mentioned that equally comprehensive arrangements cover services between Oldham and the Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield Board, and between the latter and Ashton and Stockport.
Much Still to be Done All this is to the benefit of the public, but there still remains much to be done. Apart from the lack of crosscity services in Manchester, and particularly the lack of effective links between the longer services terminating at Greengate, Parker Street and Lower Mosley Street, there is considerable divergence of conditions between the various operators, as the comparison set out in an accompanying table shows. This matter has been under review by the Municipal Passenger Transport Association (Area C) and recommendations have been made for the adoption of uniform conditions among the municipalities.